myk
volveré y seré millones
Posts: 14422
Registered: 04-02 |
Vordakk said:
90% of American media, including TV and printed news, is liberally biased. I regularly hear and see the Tea Party trash-talked by media outlets, while this "Occupy (insert name of city or trendy thing to hate here)" phenomenon has only been questioned by Fox News and certain people on conservative talk radio.
Since you think they are "hippies" (that equals "leper" to right wing yuppies and their friends) "crusty kids" and "human garbage"... one doesn't need to wonder much what "questioning" them may mean.
This "Occupy" thing is barely organized at all. Most meetings are held in some park, where attendees use a "people mic"(someone saying something and the crowd repeating it for the benefit of people futher away) because they're too cheap to go buy a bullhorn(saving those dollars up for a sixer of Pabst Blue Ribbon). The various groups cite different reasons for their angst and can't seem to come to a concensus on what they believe(big surprise).
With that in mind, people with fascist leanings won't find them appealing because they don't give the impression of security, power and authority. Neither will elitists who hate popular democracy, as basically what they have is an open critical congress where people are encouraged to debate, express and share their discontent and experiences.
a return to the first principles and the Constitution, less government intrusion in our lives, less burdensome regulation on businesses(which creates jobs), lower taxes, more freedom, stronger borders, and a national defense plan that adhere's to Reagan's "peace through strength" maxim.
When you see that those ideas are promoted actively by very rich people and the owners of leading companies, the irony behind them starts to hurt. Sure, it would be cool to have a society made out of endless webs of smallish private businesses that happily work as "balanced" markets, but that's as idealistic as communism or anarchism just happening. Instead, through competition private business tends to consolidate poles of wealth and power that turn into hegemonies, and the economy and markets have few means to revert that. With that context, extreme laissez-faire ideas are used mainly to attack welfare spending, but not military spending, which big corporations support to expand their business into places otherwise under the governance of sovereign foreign states who want to have their own resources and industries. And the hippies that knew nothing about economics and history in the '70s seemed rather aware that the Vietnam war may have been an important factor behind the economic crisis. Like them, the OWS movement tends to be critical of military spending, especially when they see that welfare and job creation are weak. Backing for the financial system also ends up being "excepted" because large companies live off of it.
In ant case, Reagan's "peace and strength" meant backing or provisioning tons of thugs and elitists in foreign countries, which abused or murdered their civil populations and created strife, when his diplomats weren't disrupting local initiatives that were trying to create regional economies. This in turn escalated economic interventionism, which in some cases led to more direct military meddling later.
Because rich people create jobs.
Not-so-rich-people, middle class and poor people and the government create jobs too. In addition, rich people also create unemployment because it cheapens costs. You can lie by stating a half truth.
I never understood class warfare.
Saying that calling out the 1%/99% problem is "class warfare" is a red scare tactic.
I certainly stand behind my statement that most of America's media outlets are left-wing.
It just represents more closely what most of the people in the US prefer, although still conditioned as a bunch of financial media companies processing and distributing news information. They prefer it, but they have few choices. It's left wing considering the Republican/Democratic spectrum, but that is a construct in the media and politics. Economically and in respect to the 80% of the population that doesn't have any direct weight in finance or politics, one is center-left to center-right, the other right to far right. The left in the US media shows up more in fringe publications and blogs, if anything. Perhaps if the OWS movement gets anywhere, you will eventually have a left, as well.
Education is often a place where spending is wasteful.
I'm sure people who don't want the crusty kids, dorks, hippies and socialists to get much intellectual capital would agree. In general these topics about "wasteful spending" are presented clinically, as if the speaker were neutral, but those who state them don't even need the services they are attacking, so they lose track of the value of what is supposedly wasteful, highlighting or exacerbating the presumed wastefulness or corruption.
Satyr000 said:
One of the best ways to cut down on medicaid and medicare spending is to change the systems so that it forces people to be responsible for there health. A person that drinks like a fish, has a pack a day smoking habit and eats a McDonalds for most of there meals should not have there healthcare fully covered by medicaid or medicare. We all know that doing any one of the above can lead toand most of the time will lead to long term health issues. Why should they use the money taken out of my paycheck to pay for your poor decisions?
Since medicaid and medicare are mainly for poorer or retired people, the applicability of such a policy starts to suffer because the cause of their self-abusive behavior is often tied to poor education, including a lack of enough medical advice and supervision, or environmental stress beyond individual control. That sort of policy may work in private medical services where you can say "if you don't like this try something else" but then those people would be eligible to some kind of public coverage or at least non-profit services or a class of companies that don't disclaim against "self-inflicted" issues.
|
10-14-11 04:35 
